Champertous

The judge ruled the champertous agreement as illegal.

The company engaged in champertous behavior by financing lawsuits against its competitors.

The attorney was disbarred for engaging in champertous behavior and violating ethical rules.

The court prohibited the champertous practice to maintain the integrity of the legal system.

The defendant accused the plaintiff of entering into a champertous agreement with a third party to finance the lawsuit.

The attorney's champertous funding of the lawsuit was a violation of legal ethics.

The champertous arrangement was considered to be an abuse of legal process.

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's champertous involvement in the case was unethical.

The plaintiff accused the defendant of engaging in champertous conduct by financing a lawsuit against him.

His offer of champertous funding was an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the case.

The lawyers were accused of champertous behavior for taking a percentage of the plaintiff's settlement.

The champertous agreement between the two parties was discovered by the judge during the trial.

The court declared the champertous agreement invalid and ordered the third party to return the funds to the plaintiff.

The champertous practice of funding lawsuits for profit is considered unethical by most legal professionals.

The judge found the champertous agreement to be illegal and ordered the financier to return the money.

The lawyer was accused of champertous conduct for financing his client's lawsuit in exchange for a share of the winnings.

The law firm was sued for encouraging champertous conduct among their clients.

The attorney was disbarred for his involvement in champertous conduct.

The plaintiff's champertous agreement with the financier gave rise to a conflict of interest.

The court ruled that the champertous agreement between the plaintiff and the financier was void.

The lawyer was accused of champertous conduct for financing his client's lawsuit in exchange for a share of the settlement.

The law firm was investigated for champertous practices after it was discovered they were financing a large number of lawsuits.

The champertous agreement allowed the financier to collect a percentage of the settlement, even though he had no stake in the lawsuit.

The plaintiff's case was dismissed after the court discovered a champertous agreement between the plaintiff and the third party.

The judge ruled the champertous agreement between the plaintiff and the third party was illegal.

The champertous contract between the parties was found to be void ab initio.

The court imposed heavy fines on the parties involved in the champertous agreement.

The court imposed sanctions on the lawyer for engaging in champertous conduct.

The law firm was investigated for engaging in champertous behavior by offering to finance their clients' lawsuits.